Tag Archive: Randy Barnett

A Conspiracy Against Obamacare





” Last week, A Conspiracy Against Obamacare: The Volokh Conspiracy and the Health Care Case was released, of which I am proud to be the editor. The book compiles the discussions and debates about the Affordable Care Act that occurred on the legal blog the Volokh Conspiracy, supplemented with new material. The posts are stitched together into a narrative structure. As a result, you can see the constitutional arguments against the Affordable Care Act develop in real time, from before the law was passed all the way to the Supreme Court.”


   The contributing author’s roster in a virtual who’s who of the libertarian legal movement and as such this book is destined to become a classic in the history of the fight against Statism.

” The contributors are Randy E. BarnettJonathan H. AdlerDavid E. BernsteinOrin S. Kerr,David B. Kopel, and Ilya Somin, most of whom are closely associated with Cato in one way or another.”

Buy it … Read it .








” This article is part of a series on Guns in America that explores the use of firearms in our country and the debate over gun control.

Since the shootings in Newtown, Connecticut, one of the major responses has been to increase restrictions on gun rights, presumably to reduce the probability that a mass shooting will take place.

But what if their proposed methods for doing so are unconstitutional? That’s the argument advanced by some experts on constitutional law, who argue that the landmark cases of District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago protect against the most controversial ideas being proposed, such as an assault weapons ban. Moreover, even some renowned liberal experts on the same law law admit that the tools available to the government are limited.

Key questions in the debate are: Can the government ban assault weapons without violating the Constitution? If so, why? To answer these questions, TheBlaze spoke to legal authorities on both sides of the ideological divide, including some truly famous names within the realm of constitutional law. What we found may surprise you.

A Teaser To Pique Your Interest …

” On these grounds, at least one expert would toss out assault weapons bans entirely. That expert, Randy Barnett of Georgetown Law Center, explained his reasoning to theBlaze via phone:

“When you get down to specifics, I think some of the easier cases for finding unconstitutionality is the assault weapons ban, which bans a weapon in common use, which is the phrase that Heller used to describe the weapons that are protected by the Second Amendment,” Barnett told TheBlaze. “There’s hardly a weapon that’s in more common use than the AR-15 so-called assault weapon. I say so-called, because we all know this is a made-up category. They don’t fire any faster than a constitutionally protected handgun fires, and it’s typically less lethal than a handgun.” “

Read The Whole Thing







Nullification Deniers! This Is What James Madison Really Said






  A thorough , detailed and link-filled post on why nullification is not only feasible but our right . Very much worth your time .


” Nullification deniers such as Matthew Spalding of Heritage Foundation, Jarrett Stepman of Human Events, law professor Randy Barnett,  David Barton of Wallbuilders, and history professor Allen C. Guelzo, say that nullification by States of unconstitutional acts of the federal government is unlawful and impossible. They make the demonstrably false assertions that:

  • States don’t have the right to nullify unconstitutional acts of the federal government because our Constitution doesn’t say they can do it;
  • Nullification is literally impossible;
  • The supreme Court is the final authority on what is constitutional and what is not; and The States and The People must submit to whatever the supreme Court says; and
  • James Madison, Father of Our Constitution, opposed nullification.

Their assertions contradict our Declaration of Independence, The Federalist Papers, our federal Constitution, and what James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and Alexander Hamilton really said.

What are the Two Conditions Precedent for Nullification?

The deniers seem unaware of the two conditions our Framers saw must be present before nullification is proper and possible. These conditions are important – you will see why!:

  • The act of the federal government must be unconstitutional –  usually a usurpation of a power not delegated to the federal government in the Constitution; and
  • The act must be something The States or The People can “nullify”- i.e., refuse to obey:  the act mustorder them to do something or not do something.

What is “Interposition” and What is “Nullification”? “

Read The Whole Thing

The Examiner

  ” Back in 2010, Georgetown Law professor Randy Barnett, who has been described as the legal
architect behind challenges to the health care law, wrote a paper on the unconstitutionality of
Obamacare in which he issued the following warning about the Obama administration’s
taxing power claim: “(T)he government’s tax power theory is far more radical than the Commerce and Necessary
and Proper Clause theory precisely because the Supreme Court has generally deferred to any invocation of the tax power to raise revenue to spend for the general welfare. “